Two weeks ago, KSU won a summary judgement against Geno Ford for breach of contract. Today is was announced that the court also sided with KSU on its claim that Bradley knowingly interfered with Ford's contract. Trial in October for amount of damages.

http://www.recordpub.com/news%20local/20...coach-ford

Both Ford and Bradley can appeal.

$$$

(07-25-2013 11:08 PM)FlashFan Wrote:  Two weeks ago, KSU won a summary judgement against Geno Ford for breach of contract. Today is was announced that the court also sided with KSU on its claim that Bradley knowingly interfered with Ford's contract. Trial in October for amount of damages.

http://www.recordpub.com/news%20local/20...coach-ford

Both Ford and Bradley can appeal.

Just asking:

Are these decisions from such a low level court that they could very well be reversed on appeal.

There are 'home courts' (or home court advantage) in the legal arena as well in basketball.

I'm reminded of UofMaryland vs. ACC with different suits in Md and N. Carolina.

I believe one is in Prince Georges (county), Md where the university is and I believe the other is where the ACC headquarters are.

This judgment won't be worth anything. KSU has to prove more than the $1.2MM in damages to get anything here, and they're asking for $1.6MM, which means best case scenario this is worth $400K. All this means is that Bradley is now on the hook in addition to Geno for some portion of the award, but they were already indemnifying him for $400K per their contract with Geno, so this probably just shifts the burden from $400K from Bradley and $800K from Geno, to $600K from both, depending on Ohio law. I don't see how in the world they can prove up anywhere close to the damages of the $1.6MM they're asking for.

Bradley also won summary judgment on the punitive damages count here.

(07-26-2013 08:23 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 11:08 PM)FlashFan Wrote:  Two weeks ago, KSU won a summary judgement against Geno Ford for breach of contract. Today is was announced that the court also sided with KSU on its claim that Bradley knowingly interfered with Ford's contract. Trial in October for amount of damages.

http://www.recordpub.com/news%20local/20...coach-ford

Both Ford and Bradley can appeal.

Just asking:

Are these decisions from such a low level court that they could very well be reversed on appeal.

There are 'home courts' (or home court advantage) in the legal arena as well in basketball.

I'm reminded of UofMaryland vs. ACC with different suits in Md and N. Carolina.

I believe one is in Prince Georges (county), Md where the university is and I believe the other is where the ACC headquarters are.

Because both summary judgements came from a Portage County court, any appeal by Ford and or Bradley must be made through the Ohio 11th District Court of Appeals in Warren, Ohio. Warren is about 30 minutes from KSU and home to one of KSU's largest branch campuses. Lots of KSU students and alumni in the area. All judges in Ohio, including the 5 sitting in the 11th district, are elected by popular vote.

In Ohio, each appellate court has 5 sitting judges; 3 must agree to hear a case. Generally, for an appeal on summary judgement to be accepted, the losing party must show the lower court misapplied the law. Errors in fact are generally not credible appeals, because in a summary judgement all facts not stipulated by both parties are resolved in favor of the plaintiff. (Hard to appeal an applied fact because the lower court agreed with you.) No new evidence is permitted on appeal. So, one might expect that an appeal by either Ford or Bradley would be based upon misapplication of the law. ( Key Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of this case from either KSU, Ford or Bradley. The above is pure speculation based on appellate precedence in Ohio.)

The remaining higher court of appeals in Ohio is the Ohio Supreme Court. The Ohio Supremes are notorious for hearing very few cases. In my opinion, it would be considerably different behavior for them to hear this one unless something really unusual happens at the 11th District level.
Again, just pure speculation on my part, but these cases will be resolved once and for all at the next level. The wishful thinking that these appeals will go "on and on" seems unlikely.

Quote:This judgment won't be worth anything.

Au contraire. The headlines about outcomes for both the breach of contract and tortious interference are priceless.

Okay but the only practical outcome is it could make Kent look litigious and could scare away prospective coaches. Most coaches would want a higher paying school to "tortiously interfere" with their contract.

I agree BU is very unlikely to have success on appeal.

I think the outcome is to make colleges more cautious in interfering with contracts if this precedent is established. And that would be a good thing. It will make other schools more aggressive in protecting the contracts they have signed. I doubt it affects KSU specifically much at all in future dealing with coaches. If it has an affect, it will be broader than just being confined to these two specific schools.

(07-26-2013 11:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Okay but the only practical outcome is it could make Kent look litigious and could scare away prospective coaches. Most coaches would want a higher paying school to "tortiously interfere" with their contract.

I agree BU is very unlikely to have success on appeal.

"Could" is a very general condition. Could some coaches be scared away? Maybe. But as we have covered before, you can't cite a single example of this allegedly damaged reputation to Kent State, even though we've placed 4 high profile head coaches since this mess with Coach Ford began. So, for someone who continually makes the point that damages must be proven, I find your repetition of this conjecture ironic. And, the longer we keep a record of successful head coaches moving up to higher paying jobs with good wishes and no noise, the more Coach Ford and Bradley will become outliers.

Let's flip this. KSU recently lost a breach of contract case that an assistant football coach brought against us. The circumstances were that the head coach resigned and the new football coach did not pick up the assistant. Under your theory, this assistant coach could "scare off" potential employers, i.e. other athletic departments, because of his course of action to enforce his rights. Did this happen? No. The coach secured an assistant's position at a higher salary while this case was being litigated. Has KSU had a difficult time placing entire staffs of assistant football coaches since then? No. We've hired about a dozen since then.

Maybe coaches want interference and loose contract enforcement. Athletic Directors and University Presidents typically do not. Wonder what impact these judgements will have on Coach Ford's future prospects?

(07-26-2013 11:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Okay but the only practical outcome is it could make Kent look litigious and could scare away prospective coaches.

Hasn't hindered them yet, and no more than Bradley developing a reputation for interfering, then hanging the coaching hire out to dry in regards to bailing on the previous school, then mistreating them while at BU.

(07-26-2013 12:48 PM)FlashFan Wrote:  "Could" is a very general condition. Could some coaches be scared away? Maybe. But as we have covered before, you can't cite a single example of this allegedly damaged reputation to Kent State, even though we've placed 4 high profile head coaches since this mess with Coach Ford began. So, for someone who continually makes the point that damages must be proven, I find your repetition of this conjecture ironic. And, the longer we keep a record of successful head coaches moving up to higher paying jobs with good wishes and no noise, the more Coach Ford and Bradley will become outliers.

No, it's not ironic that I point out damages must be proven in a court case (They do) while speculating on something else. I'll thank you and Alanis Morissette to stop using that word.

Quote:Let's flip this. KSU recently lost a breach of contract case that an assistant football coach brought against us. The circumstances were that the head coach resigned and the new football coach did not pick up the assistant. Under your theory, this assistant coach could "scare off" potential employers, i.e. other athletic departments, because of his course of action to enforce his rights. Did this happen? No. The coach secured an assistant's position at a higher salary while this case was being litigated. Has KSU had a difficult time placing entire staffs of assistant football coaches since then? No. We've hired about a dozen since then.

I don't know nearly as much about the facts of that situation as I do this one. But just because he signed with another employer doesn't mean he had the offers he would have. Just because that employer decided he was worth the risk doesn't mean it wasn't a factor in the AD's mind. It doesn't mean there wasn't a chilling effect.

Hiring a dozen assistant coaches since then (out of a pool of how many? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands?) doesn't disprove anything. There are too many desperate low level coaches out there. My point with Geno and Kent's litigiousness is that a comfortable coach, like at say Belmont or Oral Roberts or Florida Gulf Coast, may decide if another opening comes at Kent, that it's not worth the jump because they may get hounded for the whole buyout if they get a better offer. That doesn't mean Kent won't find a coach, or even a coach with a good resume. It will just mean they're forced to choose between 50 applicants instead of say, 60. And the best applicant might still be in that trimmed down 50.

Or not. It's just my opinion. I'm not saying the sky will fall, but if I'm in the shoes of a coach weighing offers from Kent and, say, Cleveland State or Evansville, all else equal, I'm not going to Kent.

Quote:Maybe coaches want interference and loose contract enforcement. Athletic Directors and University Presidents typically do not. Wonder what impact these judgements will have on Coach Ford's future prospects?

I severely doubt it will have any impact on Ford's prospects. If he wins enough, the BCS school that hires him from Bradley will likely consider itself his final destination and won't be as concerned about his burning of bridges when he left at Kent and/or Bradley.

Maybe so, but it will be sweet justice to see Bradley left holding the bag and looking for their payout if/when he jolts them for greener pastures.

It cones down to the language of the contract for any potential coach. It is up to the coach and his agent to negotiate the contract to have less of a buyout or even stipulate in the contract how long it will take to pay off the buyout instead of a lump sum.

I can't feel bad for Geno or Bradley as one of the articles states that most buyouts are discussed within a couple of days and that Kent waited a month to hear from either of them before filing the lawsuit. All this could've been avoided if a phone call to Kent was made.

(07-26-2013 10:09 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  It cones down to the language of the contract for any potential coach. It is up to the coach and his agent to negotiate the contract to have less of a buyout or even stipulate in the contract how long it will take to pay off the buyout instead of a lump sum.

I can't feel bad for Geno or Bradley as one of the articles states that most buyouts are discussed within a couple of days and that Kent waited a month to hear from either of them before filing the lawsuit. All this could've been avoided if a phone call to Kent was made.

ILG- Logic and facts matter to some but not others. Nice try, but don't get frustrated.

Bradley University is a fine institution. I imagine that this entire episode of poor judgement is embarrassing to many of its accomplished alumni and supporters. But what your getting from some (not all) Bradley fans is confabulation to confuse the situation. Perhaps it makes them feel less ashamed about the past behavior of their administrators and now coach - who knows? So spinning that down is up, up is down, the victim is the villain who will reap unintended consequences while the perpetrator shall be held blameless must help them feel better. Heck, if we were on the losing side, we may want to live in this imaginary world, too.

As you read the predictions from a few misguided Bradley supporters about what will happen as a result of this mess, consider the track record so far:

1. No court will enforce the unreasonable liquidated damages language in Geno Ford's contract. One did.

2. Tortious interferences is almost impossible to prove because Ford had permission to meet with Bradley. KSU won the tortious interference claim.

3. Kent State is litigious. In an 88 year history of athletics at Kent State, we have never sued an outgoing coach or another institution over the placement of a head coach. Since 2001, we've had Rutgers, Arkansas, TCU, Bradley, Purdue and Georgia hire away successful KSU head coaches mid contract. We've never had a claim against ANY of these institutions or outgoing coaches except Bradley University and Geno Ford. These facts speak for themselves.

Further on this "litigious" point: As a state supported institution, our legal affairs have oversight from the Attorney General's office of the State of Ohio. Our legal matters are public record. If one wishes to claim that Kent State is overly "litigious" with outgoing coaches, it should be a simple matter to prove. (On a related note, the mere idea that the conservative "pro small government, pro free market" current AG in Ohio allows Kent State to run around filing lawsuits is worth a real roar. )

So, consider the track record when you read the claims of unintended consequences for KSU. Some people can't get the provable facts of the past right, so don't look to them to predict the future.

FF,
Well said, well put!

(07-27-2013 12:22 PM)FlashFan Wrote:  So spinning that down is up, up is down, the victim is the villain who will reap unintended consequences while the perpetrator shall be held blameless must help them feel better.

For the 10 millionth time, I said it makes Bradley look bad and could negatively impact their future searches.

Quote:As you read the predictions from a few misguided Bradley supporters about what will happen as a result of this mess, consider the track record so far:

1. No court will enforce the unreasonable liquidated damages language in Geno Ford's contract. One did.

What other supporters? Who else is arguing here besides me? When did I say that? This is crazy.

Quote:2. Tortious interferences is almost impossible to prove because Ford had permission to meet with Bradley. KSU won the tortious interference claim.

Another strawman. Protip: If you're going to attack someone else for their words, make sure they actually said it.

Quote:3. Kent State is litigious. In an 88 year history of athletics at Kent State, we have never sued an outgoing coach or another institution over the placement of a head coach. Since 2001, we've had Rutgers, Arkansas, TCU, Bradley, Purdue and Georgia hire away successful KSU head coaches mid contract. We've never had a claim against ANY of these institutions or outgoing coaches except Bradley University and Geno Ford. These facts speak for themselves.

Further on this "litigious" point: As a state supported institution, our legal affairs have oversight from the Attorney General's office of the State of Ohio. Our legal matters are public record. If one wishes to claim that Kent State is overly "litigious" with outgoing coaches, it should be a simple matter to prove. (On a related note, the mere idea that the conservative "pro small government, pro free market" current AG in Ohio allows Kent State to run around filing lawsuits is worth a real roar. )

So, consider the track record when you read the claims of unintended consequences for KSU. Some people can't get the provable facts of the past right, so don't look to them to predict the future.

In the last 1 year of athletics at Kent State, there has been one suit against a departed coach. The previous 87 years being suit-free is great, but I don't think prospective coaches are going to take into account the litigiousness of whoever the KSU AD was in the 1930s.

Electing a "pro small government" AG apparently didn't stop a Kent suit in tort here, so why should anyone believe it would in the future? Also, generally speaking, although many tea party types support misguided "tort reform," they also tend to support the enforcement of contract rights, so suits like this aren't as much frowned upon. In other words, there's a difference between torts and contracts. Tea partiers are typically concerned with the former, but prospective coaches would be concerned with the latter.

Point out the statements attributed to YOU.

These three statements are summaries of the confabulation and conjecture presented by some (not all) Bradley and/or Coach Ford supporters since this mess began. You are not the only person discussing aspects of this case and this is not the only message board where it is a topic. But you've repeated some of the scare tactics, and just plain wrong statements, we have heard since this mess started.

And, since we are up to the 10 millionth time, Kent State has not had a challenge in attracting its first choice coaches since the Bradley incident. West Virginia has apparently not had a problem attracting coaches since the Michigan/Rodriguez suit. Legal messes at Arkansas haven't hindered it's ability to recruit coaches. So what you continue to repeat will happen has not happened in at least 3 places, yet you go on and on. Here'a a bulletin: There are more candidates who want DI coaching jobs than there are jobs. The line starts at the door every time a DI opening occurs.

However, if KSU's intent to defend the contracts it enters into scares away some coaches, we've found a hidden benefit by screening the field for those who prize their ambition before integrity, candor and fair dealing. So, we win again.

Here's a different scenario: when the dozens of hungry BCS assistants are looking at their chance to move up to a HC rank ( which is the source for most MAC basketball coaches, by the way), they will take into account the suit against Ford. And, they'll take into account that Ford's successor was hired and promoted with a "show clause" infraction from the Indiana mess. Kent State gave him the well deserved second chance he deserved. They'll take into account that Kent State hasn't fired a basketball coach since the '90's, and the four since then have all been hired away. If they win and don't like us, they don't have to stay long and leave a rich man. Just resign our job before they sign the contract for the next one and live by the terms agreed to and no one has a problem.

(07-27-2013 01:25 PM)GFlash68 Wrote:  FF,
Well said, well put!

Thanks, GF. Personally, sick of the propaganda intended to intimidate people or institutions from claiming their rights because some want to deal on their terms and only their terms. When KSU is wrong and loses a claim, we should take our medicine and pay up. Same for any one or anyplace else.